ITAT Cochin Judgments — August 2019

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the properties were purchased by the Trust from its own sources or that the loan for the purchase was from her husband. The Tribunal also found the assessee's explanations to be inconsistent and lacking documentary support.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the properties were purchased by the Trust from its own sources or that the loan for the purchase was from her husband. The Tribunal also found the assessee's explanations to be inconsistent and lacking documentary support.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the properties were purchased by the Trust from its own sources or that the loan for the purchase was from her husband. The Tribunal also found the assessee's explanations to be inconsistent and lacking documentary support.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding additional depreciation, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. For DEPB income, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for verification of taxation in subsequent years, based on Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The notice was therefore void ab initio.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding additional depreciation, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. For DEPB income, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for verification of taxation in subsequent years, based on Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had summarily rejected the assessee's explanation without proper examination. The assessee had discharged his primary burden by providing the name and address of the lender and an affidavit, shifting the onus to the Department to investigate further.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal primarily on the ground of a defective filing, as the assessment order was not enclosed. Even on merits, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT's order, upholding the set-aside for reconciliation.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakh should not be filed before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the ITO (Intelligence) has the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 133(6) for gathering information relevant to inquiries or proceedings. The penalty imposed was also found to be within the time limits prescribed by Section 275(1)(c) and no reasonable cause for non-compliance was established.

The Tribunal held that the High Court's order requires a fresh consideration of the assessee's eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, taking into account the activities of the society. The Assessing Officer is not solely bound by the registration certificate.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakh should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakh should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakh should not be filed. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakh should not be filed. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reassessment was initiated on issues that were already under appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the reopening was invalid as per the second proviso to Section 147 of the Act.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, following the Allahabad High Court's view that Section 271B is not applicable if books of account are not maintained. For AY 2009-10, the penalty was upheld as no reasonable cause was established for non-compliance.

For AY 2004-05, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, citing a technical breach where the audit report was filed before assessment completion. For AY 2008-09, the penalty was deleted as the assessee claimed not to have maintained books of account, making Section 271B inapplicable. For AY 2009-10, the penalty was upheld as no reasonable cause for non-compliance was established.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, following the Allahabad High Court's view that Section 271B is not applicable if books of account are not maintained. For AY 2009-10, the penalty was upheld as no reasonable cause was established for non-compliance.

For AY 2004-05, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, citing a technical breach where the audit report was filed before assessment completion. For AY 2008-09, the penalty was deleted as the assessee claimed not to have maintained books of account, making Section 271B inapplicable. For AY 2009-10, the penalty was upheld as no reasonable cause for non-compliance was established.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reassessment was initiated on issues that were already under appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the reopening was invalid as per the second proviso to Section 147 of the Act.

For AY 2004-05, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, citing a technical breach where the audit report was filed before assessment completion. For AY 2008-09, the penalty was deleted as the assessee claimed not to have maintained books of account, making Section 271B inapplicable. For AY 2009-10, the penalty was upheld as no reasonable cause for non-compliance was established.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80P. The assessee was considered a co-operative society eligible for the deduction, not a co-operative bank.